Family Medicine Forum Research Proceedings â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Family Medicine Forum Research Proceedings? Answer: Introducation Interpersonal communication skills can be defined as important factors which each and every person should try to maintain and incorporate properly in their professional as well as personal life (Ramani et al., 2017). Some of the factors of interpersonal communication that seem to develop and strengthen communication with each others are proper feedback giving and receiving skills, marketing clarity in conversations, communicating with empathy and friendliness, open mindedness as well as effective listening (Hamzah et al., 2016). Individuals who have developed communication skills are found to establish effective relationship with other that ultimately help them to reach their intended goal successfully (Kunc, Malpass White, 2016). This assignment will first use 5 different tools that will help to identify two important communication issues that I have which I need to improve over time. This should be supported by a literature review. Following the literature review there will be an action plan which I would follow in order to develop my poor communication skills. These are represented in a sequential manner. The first tool that I have used in order to reflect my communication skills is called the talkaholic scales. This tool has been found to be very helpful in knowing whether an individual is compulsive speaker or not. By the word compulsive it might sound negative and it might make the reader feel that being a compulsive speaker means that the individual talks many unnecessary things which are not wanted to be heard by others. However this is not true as researchers are of the opinion that a person, who talks more, maintains more open - mindedness, transparency and clarity. They are are perceived positively by the members of the team and also by seniors. This tool usually compels the individual to undertake a series of questions for which he needs to mark himself. This score that he would get would be categorised into three categories. These are borderline Talkaholic,where the score range between 30 to 39, less talkaholic when the score is below 30 and High talkaholic where the score i s above 40. In this case I have achieved a score of about 30 which is suggesting that I am just on the border of being less talkaholic and borderline Talkaholic. From this set of questionnaire I have realised that I am quite introvert and I do not like providing feedback as well as receiving feedback. Therefore I have made a negative image of myself in my workplace for which I am not being able to communicate freely with my colleagues. The next tool which is used by me for this reflection assignment is willingness to listen Diagnostic tool. This tool is extremely important for judging whether an individual has proper listening skill. Listening skill is very important as it can increase productivity in business and effectivity in business communication. They reduce miscommunication and also help to grow bonds and relationship among different members. This tool has 24 questions which are needed to be marked by the grading system of 1 to 5 and there is a particular formula which is used to measure the score. Scores below 59 shows that the individual has no willingness to listen and when the score is above 89 it shows high willingness. Score between 59 and 89 shows moderate willingness to listen. In this I scored 70 which shows that I am in the category of moderate listening skills. This is not a very good sign of a business professional as moderate listening will never help me to overcome any critical situations and b ecome victorious. Rather I might face different kinds of miscommunication and will not be able to grow bonds among different members of the team. Therefore I also need to develop my listening skill. The next tool that I have used for this Reflection assignment is called the personal report of intercultural management apprehension also called Prica. This is helpful for an individual who wants to know whether he has any gap in his intercultural communication skills .This tool has 14 important questions which need to be marked with the range of 1 to 5 and then the score is to be calculated with a proper formula. Here there are three categories where the individual will be assigned for being Low intercultural, moderate intercultural and high intercultural when the marks will be below 32, 32 to 52 and above 52 respectively in this tool I found myself to belong to the moderate intercultural group because I gained a score of about 40. This might be because I have certain biases which get reflected during my communication with the people from other cultures. Moreover, I am also unsure about how to behave with them as I do not have any knowledge about their cultural preferences and inhib ition point. The next Tool that is used by me is called the tolerance for this agreement scale. This tool helps to measure the degree to which an individual is able to tolerate other people when they disagree with what he believed to be true. People who usually score low in this tool is unable to handle more people disagreeing with him and therefore gets involved in different types of conflicts. Individual who is scoring high in this tool have the capability to deal with more disagreement and thereby can prevent himself from getting into any conflicts. This tool consists of 15 questions which needs to be answered with the scoring from 1 to 5. This score is then categorised into three important groups of people like people with high TFD, low TFD and moderate TFD when the score is above 46, below 32 and between 32 and 46. As I scored here 46, it means that I am on the borderline of being high TFD and moderate TFD. This means that I am being able to take in disagreements successfully and strategical ly try to point out myself so that I do not engage into any conflicts. Another tool that I have used for my reflection is the personal report of public speaking anxiety. It also like the other tool gives out a score and this is then categorised into three distinct categories here I got a high score in public speaking with states that I am quite confident when I speak in front of my friends as well with strangers. Two issues have been identified by me that require immediate attention from my side for betterment of my career. I have realized that the first problem which I need to look after is my feedback providing skills to people. I failed to provide effective feedback to people because I think that they will take me to be judgmental about their performance and they may develop a feeling that I am interfering in their professional life. I also have a poor feedback receiving skills because I get apprehensive that others may misguide me for their own advantages. Another skill that I also need to mention here is my poor listening skills. I tend to become overconfident in my approach. I do not provide scope to the speaker so that he can clarify himself or say something important regarding anything task. These two issues need to be tackled by me properly so that I can develop proper communication skills. The first experience that I wanted to share here took during my placement years in the firm. Our leader has made a team of 3 individuals of which I was also one member. The team members provided a proper planning and thereby we divided our responsibilities and were assigned with specific task. However I was absent for work one day when some modifications were made in the task. The next day when I came back to work my team members came to us me to provide me all the information about the alterations that was made so that there is no overlapping of the same task among the different group member. Due to my impatient listening skills I got them short and told them that I had already understood and I need no more information from them. However due to improper listening I had mistakenly conducted the same work which was also done by my other team members and therefore it completely resulted in a massacre of the result which was expected from us by our leader. My group failed miserably and I was held responsible for this. Another experience took place during my first month of internship. I was made the leader of conducting a team of 6 members where I was supposed to develop a research procedure for analyzing the growing incidence of retention from our company. I called upon a meeting and told my team members that we would be developing an interview procedure for 120 employees of the organization to understand their perceptions and of the work in the organization. To this one of the member suggested that conducting interview for 120 people would be lengthy and therefore conducting online survey would be easier but due to my overconfidence I did not receive the feedback from the team members. However in reality the research took a long time to get completed for which I was criticized by my mentor. If I would have taken their feedback and would have given my own feedback, and thereby developed a discussion environment, the work would have been more fruitful. Researchers over the years have conducted experiment to find out the importance of effective communication in both personal as well as professional life. They have stated that effective communication helps in developing positive influence in different types of decision making processes (Fujimori et al., 2014). They do so by presenting a particular strong point of view that is helpful in forming a mutual understanding among the speaker as well as the listener. Individuals who are capable of proper communication procedures can deliver efficient decisions. They also provide solutions which are accurate, timely and also have relevant information (Hassani et al., 2016). They also help in developing healthy relationships by encouragement of team members through trust and understanding. Jackson (2014) has stated that proper skills of listening are an important part of developing effective communication. This is helpful in providing the right information in the right process. And effective l istening procedure is a kind of communication skills which allow understanding of the opposite individual. It is also important for listening to the response provided by the opposite individual in order to develop an idea about their point of view. Any interruption or cut in the smooth flow of effective listening procedure can be defined and termed as an ineffective listening (Fujimori et al., 2014). Researchers of the opinion that listening is one of our most important factor for a professional and as well as for the personal life because it helps in developing strong relationship. Gregory and Brian (2015) has provided a number of different types of listening skills. A listener should always provide proper attention by directly looking at them. While listening, they should not engage into any other activities as this might make them miss out important information from registering into the brain (Lin et al., 2013). The listener should also study the proper body language at the same time of listening. While the opposite person is speaking, the listener should show genuine importance to his discussion to prevent disappointment and lack of interest in the speakers. This can be responded by listener repeating that in his own words in order to clarify whether the listener properly understood what the speaker wanted to say. Article published by Hatala et al., (2014) has stated that the listener should not always do not try to provide rationally behind what the operations person is speaking but whether he should try to understand from the point of view of the of the speaker and try to gain knowledge about the perceptions of the speaker. He should develop the scheme to allow the speaker to complete his statement before giving any Views or opinion (Jackson, 2016. Moreover other important factors that a listener should try to implement for developing his interpersonal skills are to be timely in reaction to the speaker. This is significant in both personal and profession al life and timely speaking and reacting reduces the chance of any sort of future misconceptions and also help to reduce the chance of any unsuccessful commitments. Researchers have stated that feedback is the information that can be defined as the reaction to a particular discussion product or about the performance of a particular task. Feedback is mainly provided to make task better or for the improvement. Feedback however is restricted to only describing up the behaviour and never can be applied to personality. Feedback sharing should be specific as possible. Conrad (2014) has stated that this helps in bringing the main focus in the entire discussion procedure. Just like listening skills, feedback providing and listening skills should also be timely for best benefits. It can bring out positive effects rather than making the situation worse. Effective feedback actually helps in providing ideas to an individual where he can understand what has gone wrong in his decision so that he does not repeat the same mistake again in the future time. Many researchers suggest feedback as an occupational support that helps in making an individual dedicate mo re into his professional and personal life and does not allow him in getting burned off. It also helps an individual to learn about what other perceives about his working style, capability, performance or, character (Linton et al. 2016). Many other researchers have stated that feedback can help in providing motivation, improvement of performance and can also act as a tool for continued learning. The Action Plan which is proposed for the development of the listening skill and feedback skills should follow smart objectives. The smart objectives of a specific goal are where the objective which would be proposed would be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely. The goals would be development of effective listening plan and feedback giving and receiving skills. For that I need to engage in different kinds of workshops that conduct tuition classes on development of communication skills. Moreover I can also get admitted to the university discussion forums which are usually held tri-weekly. The mentors can help me in overcoming different barriers which I am facing in my communication skills. I can also go through important communication models which are proposed in different article journal over the years by eminent researchers. I can collect the journals from the digital library and follow them closely to develop evidences of learning proper listening skills. This sho uld be measurable. The better I become in my listening skills I would be able to provide more efficiency in my personal and professional task. The increase in success of my different types will help me to measure the success of the different initiatives I take. This course should be attainable easily. Different types of workshops, mentor, discussion forums journal papers etc are not that much costly and could be afforded by me. I can also easily access the library which does not require any extra subscription. Therefore the goal set is easily attainable. Moreover the initiatives I should be taking should be relevant because that would help to me to make me aware of the different issues I am having in my listening skill and will help me to develop skills which would overcome my improper listening skills. A total of 6 months will be required for development of the listening skills. A gnat chart is provided in next page. References: Conrad, D. (2014). Workplace communication problems: Inquiries by employees and applicable solutions.Journal of business studies quarterly,5(4), 105. DeBenedectis, C. M., Gauguet, J. M., Makris, J., Brown, S. D., Rosen, M. P. (2017). Coming out of the dark: a curriculum for teaching and evaluating radiology residents communication skills through simulation.Journal of the American College of Radiology,14(1), 87-91. Fujimori, M., Shirai, Y., Asai, M., Akizuki, N., Katsumata, N., Kubota, K., Uchitomi, Y. (2014). Development and preliminary evaluation of communication skills training program for oncologists based on patient preferences for communicating bad news.Palliative supportive care,12(5), 379-386. Fujimori, M., Shirai, Y., Asai, M., Kubota, K., Katsumata, N., Uchitomi, Y. (2014). Effect of communication skills training program for oncologists based on patient preferences for communication when receiving bad news: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of clinical oncology,32(20), 2166-2172. Gillis, A. E., Morris, M. C., Ridgway, P. F. (2014). Communication skills assessment in the final postgraduate years to established practice: a systematic review.Postgraduate medical journal, postgradmedj-2014. Gregory, J., Bryan, K. (2015). Speech and language therapy intervention with a group of persistent and prolific young offenders in a non-custodial setting with previously undiagnosed speech, language and communication difficulties.International journal of language communication disorders, 1-14. Hamzah, M. I., Othman, A. K., Hassan, F., Razak, N. A., Yunus, N. A. M. (2016). Conceptualizing a Schematic Grid View of Customer Knowledge from the Johari Window's Perspective.Procedia Economics and Finance,37, 471-479. Hassani, K., Nahvi, A., Ahmadi, A. (2016). Design and implementation of an intelligent virtual environment for improving speaking and listening skills.Interactive Learning Environments,24(1), 252-271. Hatala, R., Cook, D. A., Zendejas, B., Hamstra, S. J., Brydges, R. (2014). Feedback for simulation-based procedural skills training: a meta-analysis and critical narrative synthesis.Advances in Health Sciences Education,19(2), 251-272. Jackson, D. (2014). Business graduate performance in oral communication skills and strategies for improvement.The International Journal of Management Education,12(1), 22-34. Jackson, D. (2014). Business graduate performance in oral communication skills and strategies for improvement.The International Journal of Management Education,12(1), 22-34. Jackson, D. (2016). Modelling graduate skill transfer from university to the workplace.Journal of civil-engineering and Work,29(2), 199-231. Kunc, M., Malpass, J., White, L. (Eds.). (2016).Behavioral Operational Research: Theory, Methodology and Practice. Springer. Lin, E. C. L., Chen, S. L., Chao, S. Y., Chen, Y. C. (2013). Using standardized patient with immediate feedback and group discussion to teach interpersonal and communication skills to advanced practice nursing students.Nurse education today,33(6), 677-683. Linton, S. J., Boersma, K., Traczyk, M., Shaw, W., Nicholas, M. (2016). Early workplace communication and problem solving to prevent back disability: results of a randomized controlled trial among high-risk workers and their supervisors.Journal of occupational rehabilitation,26(2), 150-159. McLeod, S., Mulder, C., McGregor, M., Katz, A., Singer, A., Liddy, C., ... Viner, G. (2017). Family Medicine Forum Research Proceedings 2016Do urine cultures in the emergency department change management of young women with symptoms of uncomplicated urinary tract infection? Ontario data support Starfields theory on practice quality and costHome-based primary care for frail eldersMeasuring the social determinants of health with linked administrative dataUsing big data to understand medication adherence in ManitobaUnderstanding patient referral wait times in OntarioDevelopment of a pharmacist ....Canadian Family Physician,63(2), S1-S108. Perrona, N. J., Sommerc, J., Louis-Simonetd, M., Nendaz, M. (2015). Teaching communication skills: beyond wishful thinking.Swiss medical weekly,145, w14064. Ramani, S., Knings, K., Mann, K. V., van der Vleuten, C. (2017). Uncovering the unknown: A grounded theory study exploring the impact of self-awareness on the culture of feedback in residency

Sample Paper free essay sample

State the law that governs the strength of the current passing through a metallic conductor when a p. d is applied across its end. Illustrate this law graphically? 2. Why is an ammeter connected in series and voltmeter in parallel in a circuit? 3. In an experiment the current flowing through a resistor and potential difference across it are measured. The values are given below. Show that these values confirm Ohm’s Law and also find the resistance of the resistor. I (ampere) I(ampere) 1. 0 1. 0 2 1. 5 2. 0 2. 0 2. 5 2. 5 3. 3. 0 V (volt) V(volt) 4. 0 4. 0 6. 0 6. 0 8. 0 8. 0 10. 0 10. 0 12. 0 12. 0 4. What are ohmic conductors? What are non ohmic conductors? Give example 5. Draw the VI graph for an ohmic and a non ohmic conductor. 6. Calculate the number of electrons constituting one coulomb of charge? 7. A piece of wire is redrawn by pulling it until its length is tripled. Compare the new resistance with the original value. 8. the ratio of resistivity’s of two materials a and b is 1:2, ratio of their length is 3:4 and if the ratio of radii is 2:3 find the ratio of resistance of a and b. We will write a custom essay sample on Sample Paper or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page . Two wires are of same length and radius but one of them is copper and the other is of iron. Which will have more resistance? (Given the resistivity of copper = 1. 62 x 10 -8 ohm meter and resistivity of iron = 10 x 10-8 ohm meter. 10. A wire of resistance 5 Ohm is spent in the form of closed circle. What is the resistance between 2 points at the ends of any diameter of the circle? 11. Two wires of equal cross sectional area, one of copper and other of manganin have same resistance. Which one will be longer? 2. Two students perform an experiment on series and parallel combinations of two given resistors R1 and R2 and plot following VI graph Which of the graph is (are) correctly labeled. Justify your answer. 13. Draw the circuit consisting of a battery of five 2V cells, 5ohm resistor, 10 ohm resistor, 15 ohm resistor and a plug key. All connected in series (b) Calculate the current passing through the above circuit when key is closed. 14. Three resistors of 4ohms, 6ohms and 12 ohms are connected in parallel. The combination of above resistors is connected in series to a resistance of 2 ohms and then to a battery of 6 volts. Draw a circuit diagram and calculate a) Current in main circuit b) Current flowing through each of the resistors in parallel c) P. d and the power used by the 2 ohm resistor. 15. State the law which governs the amount of heat produced in a metallic conductor when current is passed through it for a given time. Express this law mathematically? 16. State which has a higher resistance. A 50W or 25W lamp. Also find the ratio of their resistances. 17. Why is tungsten used almost exclusively for making the filaments of electric lamps? 18. Write the advantages of connecting electrical appliances in parallel and disadvantages of connecting them in series in a household circuit. 19. State the relation between the commercial and SI unit of electric energy. 20. For a heater rated at 4 kW and 220 V, calculate (a) the current, b) the resistance of the heater, ) the energy consumed in 2 hours, and d) the cost if 1 kWh is priced at Rs. 4. 60..

Listening Comprehension Strategies

Listening Comprehension Strategies Listening comprehension, also known as oral comprehension, can present a struggle for learning disabled children. Many disabilities can make it difficult for them to attend to information delivered orally, including difficulties in processing sounds and prioritizing sensory input. Even children with mild deficits may simply find auditory learning difficult since some students are visual or even kinesthetic learners. What Disabilities Affect Listening Comprehension? Auditory processing disorder, ADHD or a language-processing deficit can have serious impacts on listening comprehension. These children can hear, but imagine a world in which every noise you heard was at the same volume- its just impossible to sort out the important sounds from the unimportant ones. A ticking clock may be as loud and attention-grabbing as the lesson being taught by the teacher.    Reinforcing Listening Comprehension at Home and School For a child with these kinds of needs, listening comprehension work cant only happen in school. After all, parents will have the same struggles at home. Here are some general strategies for children with auditory processing delays. Reduce distraction. To help regulate volume and keep a child on task, its essential to eliminate extraneous noises and motion. A quiet room can help. Failing that, noise-canceling headphones can do wonders for easily distracted learners.Let the child see you when you speak. A child with difficulty interpreting sounds or making them on her own should see the shape of your mouth as you speak. Let him put his hand on his throat when saying words that present difficulty, and have him look in a mirror while speaking.Take movement breaks. Some children will need a refresher in the struggle to listen. Let them get up, move around, and then return to the task. They may need this support more often than you think!Read aloud, at least 10 minutes a day. You are the best example: Spend time reading aloud one-on-one to kids with auditory deficits. Its important to cater to the childs interests.Help her with the process of listening. Have the child repeat what youve said, summarize what shes read, or explain to you how she will complete a task. This builds the foundation of comprehension. When teaching a lesson, present information in short and simple sentences.Always check to ensure that the child understands by repeating or rephrasing your instructions or directions. Use voice intonation to keep his attention.Whenever possible, use visual aids and or charts. For visual learners, this can make all the difference.Help children with organization by presenting the sequence of the lesson before you teach it. e Reference them as youre giving instructions.Teach strategies to these students that include rehearsing mentally, focusing on keywords and using mnemonics. Making connections when presenting new material can help them overcome the sensory deficit.For students for whom distractibility is not the main issue, group learning situations may help. Peers will often help or direct a child with deficits and lend additional support that will preserve a childs self-esteem.   Remember, just because youve said it aloud doesnt mean the child understands. Part of our job as parents and as teachers is to ensure that comprehension is happening. Consistency is the most effective strategy to support children with challenges in listening comprehension.

Can Rational Choice Theory Explain Cyber Terrorism in the United Research Paper

Can Rational Choice Theory Explain Cyber Terrorism in the United States - Research Paper Example This defines the scope of cyber terrorism and I, in this paper, explore the scope of cyber terrorism and existence of a relationship between the scope of cyber terrorism and Rational Choice Theory and the theory’s applicability to cyber terrorism in the United States. Cyber terrorism The definition of cyber terrorism is controversial because of differences in professional perspectives. Information technology experts, for example, dispute diversified opinions over the term cyber terrorism and existence of such a crime. There are however many security based definitions of cyber terrorism and their consideration can coin a comprehensive meaning. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), defines cyber terrorism as an offensive that employs â€Å"computer or communication networks† to inflict significant harm or disorientation with the aim of creating â€Å"fear or to intimidate† a group in order to achieve an objective (Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terro rism, 2008, p. 119). The organization however identifies limitation in this definition because of lack of the physical aspects in the scope of the alleged attacks. The National Infrastructure Protection Center however offers a more comprehensive definition that incorporates elements of violence in the offensive acts, confusion as the attackers’ intentions, and â€Å"political and social† influence as possible objectives (Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism, 2008, p. 119). The federal Bureau of Investigations further incorporates pre-established plans into the acts that majorly target civilians (Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism, 2008). Cyber terrorism is therefore a planned attack on a civilian group that is affiliated to a target political force, implemented using computer based applications and communication systems and leads to violence, destruction of property and disorientations in order to instill fear and intimidate people into the offend er’s desires political, social, or ideological needs. Elements of cyber terrorism The scope of cyber terrorism identifies many elements. One of its major elements is the speed with which it is executed and the number of people that it affects. Being an illegal act that authorities would wish to divert, the crime is conducted at a swift speed to ensure success through avoiding possible prevention measures. The faster nature of the crime also identifies with its medium of execution, the internet, which is instant. Cyber terrorism also affects many people because of the medium’s property and the crime’s aims. The internet condenses data and this means that extensive information that affects many people can be targeted by a single attack. Further, communication through the internet is fast, information is accessible to many people, and this spreads impacts of the offensive to a wider population (Keene, 2011). Illegal access to a system is another feature of cyber te rrorism whose scope includes hacking of a target’s website to interfere with its data or use the site to communicate the terrorists’ intended messages (Broadhurst, 2004). Application of computer and computer-based applications is another element of the

COMMUNICATION USING NEWER TECHNOLOGIES Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

COMMUNICATION USING NEWER TECHNOLOGIES - Essay Example Communicating with other people regardless what part of the world is possible in a very timely manner. We send invitations through an e-mail as well as e-cards to greet someone who celebrates birthday. Invitations can also be posted in Facebook so people can confirm if they are attending an event. In fact, communication is real-time because one can video conference with a friend, business partner or loved one through technologies like Skype. Last time, my childhood friends planned a get-together; however, a friend of ours couldn’t make it, since she is living abroad. All we had to do was set up the video camera and speaker on the PC, so she can be part of that wonderful celebration. She was there with us virtually all the time, watching us as we sing and played games. She heard the music in the background that reminded her of our good times together. She also saw the decorations we made as well as the clothes we wore that night. The only thing missing is the fact that she coul dn’t embrace us for all she has is a screen. Nevertheless, she felt she was almost there; in fact, everyone chatted with her, so she saw the smiles in our face. Aside from the Skype conference, we also sent our friend pictures by simply attaching it to our e-mail.

Proprietary and Contract Security Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Proprietary and Contract Security - Essay Example The problem has more to do with the thinking among executives proprietary security has no alternative. There is the feeling that contract security has a mix of the good and the bad. Why take the risk and get into trouble in case the security turns out to be bad (Shamus McGillicuddy). Nonetheless, reports from companies who have dared to venture and have the open system installed are encouraging. They work well and their cost is low. Some of them have gone on to say that they have better features than proprietary security. The function of security systems essentially includes spam, spyware and phishing blockers, virus protection, web filter, protocol control, intrusion prevention, a firewall and several other applications. The open sources all of these. Although company executives swear by contract security, they have only gone the extra mile and added this security along with proprietary sources in most cases. The time is not ripe for a complete recourse to the contract source and probably will never be. Proprietary security has too many aces up its sleeve that contract security will find hard to trump. Proprietary securities have access to far more rese... They also have more resources and access to critical ideas because of their size and reach. They have wide acceptance and are financially powerful to deal with any crisis. In case of any lacunae in a model, they have the capability to recall the entire lot and have replacement done at the same time. Disadvantages Because of mass production, they cannot have the maneuverability and diversity that contract security offers. They have enormous power to push their products but although they have wide range of features included in their products they cannot arrange for the maneuverability and diversity that contract sources can provide. In terms of cost, if they have to tailor make products for customers, they can be quite expensive. Contract Security The contract security segment has formed a National Association of Security Companies (NASCO). Organizations such as NASCO wield tremendous clout and are capable of bridging the gap that may exist between the proprietary and contract security. Tracy A. Henke, assistant secretary for the Office of Grants and Training, spoke about the importance of private security personnel participating in joint training with federal agencies. She also pointed out that the DHS is certifying more and more state training programs. The summit also featured sessions designed to foster an open discussion about issues directly impacting contract security operations (NASCO Concludes First Contract Security Summit). Advantages Contract securities can be powerful in applications and give value for money for niche organizations such as health and medicine. They are particularly useful for those seeking special attention in certain areas of professionals

Inter Firm Relationships in the Silicon Fen

Inter Firm Relationships in the Silicon Fen The attention that clusters have received from policy makers and academics has substantially increased in the last 20 years. Since Porters seminal work on The Competitive Advantage of Nations (1990) presented clusters as one of the determinants of the international competitiveness of nations and regions, many scholars have adopted and further developed his approach. Porter bases his arguments on what he describes as the globalization paradox, pointing out that despite the logical implications that the globalisation process might have in dismissing the relevance of regional factors, the most competitive firms in world are located in groups geographically concentrated in specific locations. That perspective contributed to attracting attention to the existence of characteristics tied to a local context that could not be accessed by firms positioned elsewhere, and more, to the positive effects that the concentration and the geographic proximity could exert on the firms competitiveness. However influential, Porters ideas were not the precursor to discussing the competitive outcomes originating from the geographic concentration of firms (Martin and Sunley, 2003). The roots of cluster theory go back to the industrial districts identified by Marshall (1890), who offered the first detailed description about the economic and social systems created as a result of the spacial concentrations of industrial activities. The Marshallian industrial districts were arrangements of small firms interconnected by commercial operations (buyers and sellers) and other firms engaged in the same or similar activities, that shared productive factors, such as the labour market, infrastructure and tacit knowledge (Becattini, 2004, p. 68). According to Marshals descriptions, a group of firms operating in one specific sector within a well-defined, concentrated and relatively small geographic area would experience higher levels of productivity and innovation, indeed the emergence of a fertile e nvironment for technical and organisational developments. Thus the local characteristics would enable the emergence of an industrial atmosphere that would increase the firms potential to acquire (especially tacit) knowledge, and create positive external economies accessible only to the firms located within the district (Asheim, 2003, p. 416). That perspective tried to evidence that firms geographically concentrated could accesses restricted positive exogenous benefits (exogenous to firms, but endogenous to the district), which would be an alternative to the scale economies achieved by a single (integrated) firm. Additionally, following some of the seminal ideas proposed by Marshall, it is possible to observe a significant number of economic geographers that also explored regional development using the spatial economic agglomeration to support their ideas. Some examples of concepts emerging from that theoretical trend are regional innovation milieux (Crevoisier, 2004), neo-Marshallian nodes (Amin and Thrift, 1992) and learning regions (Asheim, 1995). More examples can be found in Markusen (1996, p. 297), in which another three different types of industrial districts are described according to the firms configurations, internal versus external orientations and governance structures: a hub-and-spoke industrial district, which is concentrated around one or more dominant firms; a satellite platform, formed by a group of unconnected branches embedded in external links; and the state-anchored district, concentrated on one or more public-sector institutions. Despite the logical and robust assumption s found in many of those concepts, their influence and dissemination were not as successful as the more general cluster framework proposed by Porter. Martin and Sunley (2003) attributes the successful dissemination of the Porter concepts to the very general descriptions and delimitations that encompass a wide range of actors and many different structures. Following much of the concepts proposed by Porter, the description of advantages conferred on clustered firms associated with a general and structured analytical framework stimulated the development and dissemination of academic studies and subsidized the creation of supply-side competitiveness policies directed at structuring and supporting the development of clusters (Pitelis, 2010). That fact resulted in what Martin and Sunley (2003) describe as a policy panacea in the use of clusters as a standard (sometimes the unique) target for promoting competitiveness, innovation and economic growth. Moreover, in the last 20 years an increasing number of empirical studies in different countries and sectors have been observed, which aim to identify and discuss the competitive outcomes originating from the concentration of firms and other actors in the same location, for example: Brazil à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" shoe manufacturing in the Sinos Valley (Schmitz, 2000); Spain à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" the text ile and clothing industries in Catalonia (Porter, 1998); Taiwan à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" electronic products at the Hsinchu Science Park (Chen, 2008); and the United States à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" computer and information systems at the Silicon Valley (Saxenian, 1994). The large significant number of academic studies has resulted in a large number of definitions aiming to describe and establish an accepted cluster template (e.g., Enright, 1996; Swann and Prevezer, 1996, Rosenfeld, 1997; Porter, 1998) to support policy makers and academics has led to intense debates and controversial perspectives. Even though the concept of clusters has been increasingly widely disseminated and used by geographers, economists and policy makers, it has suffered from some conceptual confusion. Porter defines a cluster as a geographic concentration of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers firms in related industries, and associated institutions (for example, universities, standards agencies and trade associations) in particular fields that compete but also co-operate (1998, p. 197). However, Martin and Sunley (2003, p. 12) present consistent arguments that indicate the vagueness and superficiality of the concept proposed by Porter. Accordin g to their arguments, those characteristics make the concept of cluster means different things to different researchers and policy makers, creating problems for its proper use in the guidance of academics and governments. Those highly controversial aspects of the cluster theory have stimulated the continuous emergence of new concepts and definitions for clusters. Proposing a definition aiming to fill some of the gaps and failures found in extant cluster theory, Pitelis (2010, p. 5) defines clusters as geographical agglomerations of firms in particular, related, and/or complementary, activities, with a geographical dimension, that exhibit horizontal and/or vertical intra- and/or inter-sectoral linkages, which operate in the context of a facilitatory socio-institutional setting, and which co-operate and compete (co-opete) in inter-national markets. That definition tries offer to a more delimited approach that incorporates four major elements: geographical agglomeration, linkages, social-capital  [1]  and co-opetition (competition and cooperation). The use of those four elements in a single definition offers the possibility to cover the cluster characteristics using delimited criteria to identify and distinguish developed clusters from less complex geographical agglomerations of firms and institutions. Although it is possible to observe some level of ambiguity encompassing the clusters theory, the existence of links interconnecting local actors complemented by geographical dimensions constitute some of the main common points used to guide academics and policy makers with interesting by the competitive outcomes originating from clusters. Those characteristics have frequently been used as the starting point to understand the economic dynamics of clustered firms, putting emphasis on the levels of innovation and productivity emerging from the concentration of different actors in the same area. Suggesting conditional characteristics to the presence of competitive advantages obtained by firms inside clusters, Ketels (2004) considers that the positive economic effects originated from the geographical concentration will only take place if four critical characteristics are shared among firms and institutions: Proximity: they must be geographically close to allow the emergence of knowledge spillovers and to share the same common resources; Linkages: the necessity of similarities in their activities leading to the establishment of connections and synergies; Interactions: the social interactions developed among firms, clients, suppliers, research institutes, and so on, is what forms the social capital that becomes possible firms to achieve differentiated competitive performances; Critical mass: it is important to have a significant number of firms and institutions in order to create meaningful impacts on performance of the local actors. Those characteristics described by Ketels may be used to guide the identification and distinction between developed clusters (Pitelis, 2010) from incipient clusters (Schmitz, 1999) in order to dismiss some incorrect interpretations associated with the clusters dynamics. Considering that the presence of geographic concentration of firms in the same industry is strikingly common around the world (Porter, 1990, p.120), it is necessary the use of specific benchmarks to distinguish and classify different groups of firms geographically concentrated according to their specific characteristics (Gordon and McCann, 2000; Isbasoiu, 2006). Describing how the existence of local capabilities  [2]  create differentiated conditions for companies within real clusters, Menzel and Fornahl (2010) argue that clusters are essentially formed from path dependencies (Martin and Sunley, 2006), transaction costs economies (McCann and Sheppard, 2003) and small cognitive distances originating from spatial proximity (Maskell, 2001). Thus, that set of factors are expected to create a specific regional dynamics with influence on the firms economic performance. Taking into consideration the different stages of a cluster life cycle, and the misunderstandings related to the claims associated with the clusters and competitiveness, Schmitz points out that A group of small producers making the same or similar things in close vicinity to each other constitutes a cluster, but such concentration in itself brings few benefits (1999, p. 4), emphasizing that the mere presence of firms in a delimited area does not represent a source of value creat ion able to improve in a significant way the local economic performance. Following the arguments above, the differences between regional clusters and simple agglomerations (groups of firms) lie mainly on the interconnected nature and spatial proximity. Thus, clusters are characterized by intense collaborative networks and concentrations of collaboration and competition (co-opetitition) (Pitelis, 2010), conditions which offer significant opportunities and stimulate the emergence of regional competitive advantages (Steinle and Schiele, 2002). Complementarily, another critical characteristic observed within clusters is the diversity of actors. According to Porter (1990, 1998, 2000), an industrial cluster includes suppliers, consumers, related industries, governments, and supporting institutions such as universities. This way, the existence of a regional network formed by a significant group of interconnected local actors is one of the critical factors to understand the differentiated competitive performance of firms within clusters (Steinle and Schiele, 2002 ). Illustrating that argument, Saxenian (1994) observed that Hewlett Packard and other firms at the Silicon Valley had their performance improved by the development long-term partnerships with suppliers located geographically close. Moreover, based on that observation, Saxenian concluded that, especially in high-tech industries, the physical proximity represents a facilitator to the establishment of efficient collaborative arrangements required to create and manage complex products and services. 1.2 Evolutionary Stages of Industrial Clusters Despite the vast cluster literature, the number of academic works discussing the evolutionary patterns of clusters overtime is not so extensive. Some examples can be found in Pouder and John (1996), Klepper (2001, 2007), Wolter (2003) and Andersson et al., (2004), and despite the divergent perspectives, it is accepted that clusters follow a kind of life cycle comprised by different phases that significantly differ in their characteristics and influence on firms performance. Regarding the cluster dynamics, Pouder and John (1996) argue that comparative analysis between clustered and non-clustered firms during the industry life cycle reveal that firms within clusters outperform those geographically dispersed at the initial stages of development, and have a worse performance at its end. That fact suggests that the cluster life cycle is not just a local representation of the industry trajectory, but is a result from local peculiarities. The comparative analysis developed by Saxenian (1994 ) between the computer industry in Boston and Silicon Valley illustrates how different clusters belonging to the same industry are very likely to follow different trajectories (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010). Proposing a different perspective, Klepper (2001, 2007) suggests a model to demonstrate how the clusters life cycle is determined by some the industry patterns. Klepper analyzed the automobile, tire and television industries and observed that at the beginning of the industry life cycle it was not possible to observe clear geographic concentrations of firms, with most of the firms spatially dispersed. He observed that in those industries clusters started to emerge and develop according to the industry growth rates. Klepper argues that the local characteristics originating from the spacial proximity (e.g., intensive spin-off process) give the stimulus for the geographic agglomeration of the whole industry, not only for specific groups. At the time the industry growth rate reduces, the attractiveness to remain agglomerated will also decrease and the industry will become dispersed again. That model proposed by Klepper represents a Technology-Product- Industry (TIP) life cycle. The logic behind this model is on the impact that the evolution of products and innovations has on the size, number, and location of firms. Wolter (2003) criticizes the model proposed by Klepper arguing that the growth rate cannot explain the agglomeration process in all industries on equal basis. Moreover, Wolter disagrees with the determinist perspective proposed by the TIP model, once it neglects that mature industries can be reinvented by radical or incremental innovations of new products and process. Analyzing the economic performance of firms within clusters Pouder and John (1996) attribute to the existence of mental models and biased cognitive focus the characteristics responsible for shaping the movement through the clusters life cycle. Following that perspective, at initial stages the cluster dynamics creates an innovative environment that exerts positive impacts on the firms performance. However, overtime that initial condition is eroded by strong institutional pressures that create a homogeneous macroculture that acts inhibiting the innovative capacity of the firms within the cluster. As in the model presented by Klepper (2001, 2007), that trajectory proposed by Pouder and John may also be criticized by the determinism that ignores the possibility of adaptations or reconfigurations in order to avoid lock-ins and other negative effects. Considering the arguments proposed by Menzel and Fornahl (2010, p. 8) that very few clusters follow a rigid life cycle from emergence to growth and decline, it is expected that clusters evolve overtime according to the local dynamics created by economic and social interactions among firms and institutions. That dynamics may be influenced, but not strictly determined by industry patterns (Wolter, 2003). Following a generic and stylized trajectory, within successful clusters the local network formed by inter-firm connections will tend to be intensified overtime, with an increasing number of formal and informal interactions between the long-established companies and new the ones attracted to the cluster. Even though it is more conceivable to assume that the decisions adopted by firms and institutions are shaped by specific circumstances, a generic trajectory can be described following the stages illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: The cluster life cycle C:UsersLucasAppDataLocalMicrosoftWindowsTemporary Internet FilesContent.WordSem tÃÆ' ­tulo.jpg Source: Andersson et al. (2004, p. 43) Agglomeration: It is possible to observe the existence of a number of companies and other actors (e.g. banks, government agencies, universities, accountants, and lawyers offices) in a specific region working around the same or interrelated activities. Emerging cluster: Forming the embryo to the cluster some actors start to cooperation around some core activities, and start to realize the existence of common linkages. Developing cluster: The linkages are intensified by the emergence and attraction of new actors to the region, resulting in the creation of more interaction. In this context the development of inter-firm-cooperation becomes more evident through the development of joint efforts. The Mature cluster: This stage is configured by the presence of a certain critical mass of factors that consistently influence the competitive performance of the firms inside the cluster. The internal dynamics is characterized by the presence of an institutional environment, strong linkages, complementarities and the emergence of new firms through startups, joint ventures and spin-offs. Transformation: Indeed the process of continuous environmental change in markets, technologies, regulations and other process, to be successful a cluster have to innovate and adapt to these new conditions, other way stagnation and decay may affect the cluster dynamics. That process of change/adaptation may happen through the emergence of one or several interconnected clusters with focus in other activities, or by new configuration in terms of networks of firms and institutions. The presence of economic benefits for clustered firms described by authors like Schmitz and Nadvi (1999), Ketels (2004), Isbasoiu (2006) and Pitelis and Pseiridis (2006) are closely related to the stage of development that a cluster is experiencing. For example, an emerging cluster is not actually a cluster, since the small number of firms is not expected to present a high level of linkages and do not form a critical mass. Moreover, the absence of strong interdependencies such as labour mobility, spin-off, socioeconomic networks and intense exchange of good and services prevent the emergence of local capabilities. Thus, same considering that this stage constitutes the embryo that determines the future cluster orientation, at this point the firms are not expected to be strongly influenced by a complex local dynamics. Observing that fact, Menzel and Fornahl (2010) present a skeptical position regarding the effectiveness of any competitiveness policy intended to stimulate the development of clusters at initial stages (agglomeration and emerging), since the existence of horizontal and vertical links among firms concentrated in the same region constitutes a very common fact around the world. Thus, it is almost impossible to distinguish agglomerations with real potential to become a cluster from less complex structures. Consequently, emerging clusters are almost always only described ex-post. After the initial stages of the clusters life cycle it is expected the development and intensification of interdependencies between firms within cluster boundaries (Press, 2006). Indeed the development of those interdependencies, firms start to resemble more with each other, being observe the emergence of convergent designs in terms of technological models (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010), specialized labour market (Cooke et al., 2007), production systems (Pitelis, 2010) and inter-firm relationships (Blien and Maier, 2008). Moreover, developing clusters also attract a high number of start-ups that act stimulating the intensification of intra-cluster relationships. This way, that process of convergence and expansion of the number of firms within the cluster boundaries culminates in the development of self-reinforcing external economies that decrease the heterogeneity among firms at the same time that creates benefits like transactions cost economies and the privileged access to local knowle dge. As clusters reach the stage of maturity, the standards and configurations originating from past decisions become consolidate and it is observed a reduction in the growth rate of firms attracted to the cluster (Klepper, 2007). At this point the cluster trajectory may take two different directions. Keep unchanged, and suffer with a homogenization process that creates bias economic activities and therefore prevent firms to adapt to external shocks (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010). That situation traps firms in previous successful development path and lead to the geographic dispersion of the local actors and to the deterioration of the interdependencies and capabilities. The other possible trajectory is observed in clusters that reach the stage of maturity and successfully sustain the local dynamics by a continuous process of reconfiguration and adaptation to the external shocks (Wolter, 2003). 1.2 Clusters and Economic Performance The extant theory offers a wide range of explanations to justify the economic and competitive benefits experienced by firms located within clusters. Krugman (1991) stress the existence of increasing returns originating from the concentration of firms in the same area, arguing that the geographic proximity puts together the main parts related to firms activities (e.g., labours, firms, suppliers and costumers) resulting in transaction costs economies. Following other perspective, Schmitz and Nadvi (1999) argue that unintentional external economies are not sufficient to explain the competitiveness of firms located within clusters, attributing to the existence of deliberate joint actions (e.g., sharing equipments, associations, strategic alliances and producers improving components) a critical source of the competitive advantages. Pitelis and Pseiridis (2006) explain the levels of competitiveness and productivity associated with clustered firms considering the existence of specialized hu man resources, infrastructure and befits associated with unit costs economies complemented by the presence of an institutional atmosphere. Stressing a different point of view, Bahlmann and Huysman (2008) adopts the knowledge-based view of clusters to emphasize the relevance of knowledge spillovers among the firms to explain the advantages originated from the agglomeration process. Dupuy and Torre (2006) explains the existence of cluster in terms of the advantages originating from trust relationships that increase confidence and reduce risk and uncertainty about the intra-cluster operations taking place among the firms. Moreover, Zyglidopoulos et al. (2003), describe the positive effects that the reputation of a cluster may exert on the internalization process of small and micro enterprises through the alleviation of strategic constraints associated with factors like qualified work force, financing and reduction of the firms legitimation expenses. Despite that wide range of arguments, the most traditional perspective found in the cluster literature has explained the competitive advantages of clusters in terms of productivity and innovation (Pitelis, 1998; Porter, 1998), suggesting that the special characteristics originated from the economic and geographic proximity have significant impact on those two factors. Supplementary, Enright (1998) considers that the characteristics present inside the clusters local environment result in pressures, incentives and capabilities that increase the firms competitiveness comparatively to dispersed competitors, explaining the clustering process in terms of geographically restricted characteristics. Moreover, Solvell et al. (2003) suggests that the competitive advantages emerging from regional clusters may be classified as static and dynamics. According to this perspective, while the agglomeration process triggered and sustained intensively or exclusively by factors like natural resources, low cost labors and government subsidies offers a vulnerable (easy to be copied, substituted or simple eroded by environmental changes) competitive position, clusters based on dynamics characteristics like multi-sectorial externalities, advantages of scale and scope and specific knowledge spillovers are more dynamics and competitive. Extending the arguments presented by Solvell and his colleagues, Andersson et al. (2004) considers that the sustainability of static and dynamic competitive advantages is not strictly determined, arguing that static factors are the main responsible for the emergence of clusters, while the dynamics factors are only developed along the different stages of the cluste r life cycle. Complementing the understanding about the influence of the cluster dynamics on the firms economic performance some authors like Porter (2001); Garnsey and Heffernan (2007); Karlsson (2008) and Mason (2008) describe the existence of a self-reinforcing process originating from the agglomeration externalities that contribute to create a regional virtuous-circle of increasing productivity, competitiveness and value creation. Following that argument, the economic and geographic proximity will stimulate firms to innovate more indeed benefits originating from local capabilities, which will stimulate even more the agglomeration process through the intensification of inter-firm relationships and the attraction of other firms from outside the cluster, which in turn will strength the local capabilities (Blandy, 2003, p. 101). Thus, the dynamics of clusters is expected to be self-reinforced by agglomeration benefits with significant influence on the firms performance. Putting together the arguments associated with the economic impacts experienced by clustered firms indeed the existence of local factors, it is possible to identify and describe the following positive location-specific externalities: Cost savings indeed the geographic proximity with specialized suppliers, labours and distributors; Knowledge-spillovers (intentional and unintentional), since firms inside clusters can benefit from the knowledge dissemination process that may take place especially through inter-firm cooperation, specific linkages and labour mobility; Deliberate joint actions facilitated by the engagement in alliances and partnerships to achieve strategic objectives; Trust relationships, that through the geographic and economic proximity minimize the uncertainty associated with commercial operations, resulting in transactions costs economies; Pressures for higher performance, stimulated by the proximity with competitors; Specific Infrastructure and public goods that are oriented to attend the cluster demands, like roads, ports, laboratories and telecommunication networks; Complementarities, associated with firms in different activities but sharing common factors like raw material, clients and technologies that may enhance the cluster efficiency as whole. Discussing the role of regional clusters in shaping competitive patterns, Tallman et al. (2004) proposes a distinction between the types of competitive advantages emerging from clustered firms: based on traded interdependencies and based on untraded interdependencies. The concept of traded interdependencies is related to the existence of inter-firm transactions inside the cluster, and is observed in formal exchange operations that may take place in form of alliances, commercial operations and acquisitions. On the other hand, untraded interdependencies are related to less tangible effects, and are based on shared knowledge for which no market mechanism exists; with no formal exchange of value for value (Tallman et al. 2004, p. 261). To illustrate the mechanisms by which the untraded interdependencies take place, it is possible to mention unintentional external economies associated with tacit knowledge shared through mechanisms like labor mobility. Those different types of interdependencies, especially untraded, present at the cluster level, represent a source of competitive advantage that is likely to be causal ambiguous (for firms inside and outside the cluster) and high complex in terms of their origins, what consequently constitutes attributes difficult to be replicated by competitors. However, the presence of untraded effects, especially unintentional knowledge spillovers, is viewed Enright (1998) as a constraining factor for firms within clusters, since the establishment of an efficient information flow may limit the firms capacity to obtain monopoly profits from the development of innovations. Complementing the negative effects originating from the clusters dynamics, some authors also describe agglomeration diseconomies that have a negative impact firms located within clusters. For example, congestion effects (Arthur, 1990), institutional sclerosis (Pouder and John, 1996; Pitelis, 2010), rigidities associated with labour mobility and natural resources (Krugman, 1989) and pollution (Fan and Scott, 2003). This way, the dynamics and performance of a cluster is determined by the interplay between positive and negative externalities observed during the different stages of development that a cluster is expected to pass overtime (Wolter, 2003) Limitations in the Cluster Theory Notwithstanding the advances in the cluster theory some questions still remain insufficiently explored. One of the main limitations observed in the current state of the cluster literature is the lack of comparative perspectives to explain the advantages and disadvantages of clusters relatively to other alternative models of organization of economic activities. In his very novel approach, Pitelis (2010) suggests that any perspective trying to explain clusters in terms of absolute advantages is at the very best incomplete. In this context, Pitelis proposes the comparison of clusters vis-ÃÆ'  -vis to markets and hierarchies in order to understand the reasons and conditions that lead firms to engage in intra-clusters relationships, market operations (outside the cluster) or integrate within the firms hierarchy. In fact it is not necessary a great effort to conclude that most of the cluster theory has been developed following a mono-institutional approach (e.g. Porter, 1990, 1998; Saxe nian, 1994; Rosenfeld, 1998; Swann and Sennett, 1998; Schmitz and Nadvi, 1999), while some few exceptions concentrated on transactions costs (e.g. Fujita and Thisse, 1996; Iammarino and McCann, 2006; Takeda et al., 2008) and knowledge creation efficiency (e.g. Hendry et al., 2000; Tracey and Clark, 2003; Reinau, 2007; Kongmanila and Takahashi, 2009) have been drawn on a comparative approaches between clusters and open-market operations. Assuming the arguments proposed by many scholars that clusters are engines of innovation (Davis, 2006, p. 32), the lack of comparative perspectives do not answer the question why clusters are more efficient than markets or the hierarchy to improve the firms innovative capacity (Pitelis, 2010). Thus, despite the wide number of ramifications observed in the cluster theory such as innovative efficiency, productivity, social capital and social interactions, its explicative power remains almost always restricted Inter Firm Relationships in the Silicon Fen Inter Firm Relationships in the Silicon Fen The attention that clusters have received from policy makers and academics has substantially increased in the last 20 years. Since Porters seminal work on The Competitive Advantage of Nations (1990) presented clusters as one of the determinants of the international competitiveness of nations and regions, many scholars have adopted and further developed his approach. Porter bases his arguments on what he describes as the globalization paradox, pointing out that despite the logical implications that the globalisation process might have in dismissing the relevance of regional factors, the most competitive firms in world are located in groups geographically concentrated in specific locations. That perspective contributed to attracting attention to the existence of characteristics tied to a local context that could not be accessed by firms positioned elsewhere, and more, to the positive effects that the concentration and the geographic proximity could exert on the firms competitiveness. However influential, Porters ideas were not the precursor to discussing the competitive outcomes originating from the geographic concentration of firms (Martin and Sunley, 2003). The roots of cluster theory go back to the industrial districts identified by Marshall (1890), who offered the first detailed description about the economic and social systems created as a result of the spacial concentrations of industrial activities. The Marshallian industrial districts were arrangements of small firms interconnected by commercial operations (buyers and sellers) and other firms engaged in the same or similar activities, that shared productive factors, such as the labour market, infrastructure and tacit knowledge (Becattini, 2004, p. 68). According to Marshals descriptions, a group of firms operating in one specific sector within a well-defined, concentrated and relatively small geographic area would experience higher levels of productivity and innovation, indeed the emergence of a fertile e nvironment for technical and organisational developments. Thus the local characteristics would enable the emergence of an industrial atmosphere that would increase the firms potential to acquire (especially tacit) knowledge, and create positive external economies accessible only to the firms located within the district (Asheim, 2003, p. 416). That perspective tried to evidence that firms geographically concentrated could accesses restricted positive exogenous benefits (exogenous to firms, but endogenous to the district), which would be an alternative to the scale economies achieved by a single (integrated) firm. Additionally, following some of the seminal ideas proposed by Marshall, it is possible to observe a significant number of economic geographers that also explored regional development using the spatial economic agglomeration to support their ideas. Some examples of concepts emerging from that theoretical trend are regional innovation milieux (Crevoisier, 2004), neo-Marshallian nodes (Amin and Thrift, 1992) and learning regions (Asheim, 1995). More examples can be found in Markusen (1996, p. 297), in which another three different types of industrial districts are described according to the firms configurations, internal versus external orientations and governance structures: a hub-and-spoke industrial district, which is concentrated around one or more dominant firms; a satellite platform, formed by a group of unconnected branches embedded in external links; and the state-anchored district, concentrated on one or more public-sector institutions. Despite the logical and robust assumption s found in many of those concepts, their influence and dissemination were not as successful as the more general cluster framework proposed by Porter. Martin and Sunley (2003) attributes the successful dissemination of the Porter concepts to the very general descriptions and delimitations that encompass a wide range of actors and many different structures. Following much of the concepts proposed by Porter, the description of advantages conferred on clustered firms associated with a general and structured analytical framework stimulated the development and dissemination of academic studies and subsidized the creation of supply-side competitiveness policies directed at structuring and supporting the development of clusters (Pitelis, 2010). That fact resulted in what Martin and Sunley (2003) describe as a policy panacea in the use of clusters as a standard (sometimes the unique) target for promoting competitiveness, innovation and economic growth. Moreover, in the last 20 years an increasing number of empirical studies in different countries and sectors have been observed, which aim to identify and discuss the competitive outcomes originating from the concentration of firms and other actors in the same location, for example: Brazil à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" shoe manufacturing in the Sinos Valley (Schmitz, 2000); Spain à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" the text ile and clothing industries in Catalonia (Porter, 1998); Taiwan à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" electronic products at the Hsinchu Science Park (Chen, 2008); and the United States à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" computer and information systems at the Silicon Valley (Saxenian, 1994). The large significant number of academic studies has resulted in a large number of definitions aiming to describe and establish an accepted cluster template (e.g., Enright, 1996; Swann and Prevezer, 1996, Rosenfeld, 1997; Porter, 1998) to support policy makers and academics has led to intense debates and controversial perspectives. Even though the concept of clusters has been increasingly widely disseminated and used by geographers, economists and policy makers, it has suffered from some conceptual confusion. Porter defines a cluster as a geographic concentration of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers firms in related industries, and associated institutions (for example, universities, standards agencies and trade associations) in particular fields that compete but also co-operate (1998, p. 197). However, Martin and Sunley (2003, p. 12) present consistent arguments that indicate the vagueness and superficiality of the concept proposed by Porter. Accordin g to their arguments, those characteristics make the concept of cluster means different things to different researchers and policy makers, creating problems for its proper use in the guidance of academics and governments. Those highly controversial aspects of the cluster theory have stimulated the continuous emergence of new concepts and definitions for clusters. Proposing a definition aiming to fill some of the gaps and failures found in extant cluster theory, Pitelis (2010, p. 5) defines clusters as geographical agglomerations of firms in particular, related, and/or complementary, activities, with a geographical dimension, that exhibit horizontal and/or vertical intra- and/or inter-sectoral linkages, which operate in the context of a facilitatory socio-institutional setting, and which co-operate and compete (co-opete) in inter-national markets. That definition tries offer to a more delimited approach that incorporates four major elements: geographical agglomeration, linkages, social-capital  [1]  and co-opetition (competition and cooperation). The use of those four elements in a single definition offers the possibility to cover the cluster characteristics using delimited criteria to identify and distinguish developed clusters from less complex geographical agglomerations of firms and institutions. Although it is possible to observe some level of ambiguity encompassing the clusters theory, the existence of links interconnecting local actors complemented by geographical dimensions constitute some of the main common points used to guide academics and policy makers with interesting by the competitive outcomes originating from clusters. Those characteristics have frequently been used as the starting point to understand the economic dynamics of clustered firms, putting emphasis on the levels of innovation and productivity emerging from the concentration of different actors in the same area. Suggesting conditional characteristics to the presence of competitive advantages obtained by firms inside clusters, Ketels (2004) considers that the positive economic effects originated from the geographical concentration will only take place if four critical characteristics are shared among firms and institutions: Proximity: they must be geographically close to allow the emergence of knowledge spillovers and to share the same common resources; Linkages: the necessity of similarities in their activities leading to the establishment of connections and synergies; Interactions: the social interactions developed among firms, clients, suppliers, research institutes, and so on, is what forms the social capital that becomes possible firms to achieve differentiated competitive performances; Critical mass: it is important to have a significant number of firms and institutions in order to create meaningful impacts on performance of the local actors. Those characteristics described by Ketels may be used to guide the identification and distinction between developed clusters (Pitelis, 2010) from incipient clusters (Schmitz, 1999) in order to dismiss some incorrect interpretations associated with the clusters dynamics. Considering that the presence of geographic concentration of firms in the same industry is strikingly common around the world (Porter, 1990, p.120), it is necessary the use of specific benchmarks to distinguish and classify different groups of firms geographically concentrated according to their specific characteristics (Gordon and McCann, 2000; Isbasoiu, 2006). Describing how the existence of local capabilities  [2]  create differentiated conditions for companies within real clusters, Menzel and Fornahl (2010) argue that clusters are essentially formed from path dependencies (Martin and Sunley, 2006), transaction costs economies (McCann and Sheppard, 2003) and small cognitive distances originating from spatial proximity (Maskell, 2001). Thus, that set of factors are expected to create a specific regional dynamics with influence on the firms economic performance. Taking into consideration the different stages of a cluster life cycle, and the misunderstandings related to the claims associated with the clusters and competitiveness, Schmitz points out that A group of small producers making the same or similar things in close vicinity to each other constitutes a cluster, but such concentration in itself brings few benefits (1999, p. 4), emphasizing that the mere presence of firms in a delimited area does not represent a source of value creat ion able to improve in a significant way the local economic performance. Following the arguments above, the differences between regional clusters and simple agglomerations (groups of firms) lie mainly on the interconnected nature and spatial proximity. Thus, clusters are characterized by intense collaborative networks and concentrations of collaboration and competition (co-opetitition) (Pitelis, 2010), conditions which offer significant opportunities and stimulate the emergence of regional competitive advantages (Steinle and Schiele, 2002). Complementarily, another critical characteristic observed within clusters is the diversity of actors. According to Porter (1990, 1998, 2000), an industrial cluster includes suppliers, consumers, related industries, governments, and supporting institutions such as universities. This way, the existence of a regional network formed by a significant group of interconnected local actors is one of the critical factors to understand the differentiated competitive performance of firms within clusters (Steinle and Schiele, 2002 ). Illustrating that argument, Saxenian (1994) observed that Hewlett Packard and other firms at the Silicon Valley had their performance improved by the development long-term partnerships with suppliers located geographically close. Moreover, based on that observation, Saxenian concluded that, especially in high-tech industries, the physical proximity represents a facilitator to the establishment of efficient collaborative arrangements required to create and manage complex products and services. 1.2 Evolutionary Stages of Industrial Clusters Despite the vast cluster literature, the number of academic works discussing the evolutionary patterns of clusters overtime is not so extensive. Some examples can be found in Pouder and John (1996), Klepper (2001, 2007), Wolter (2003) and Andersson et al., (2004), and despite the divergent perspectives, it is accepted that clusters follow a kind of life cycle comprised by different phases that significantly differ in their characteristics and influence on firms performance. Regarding the cluster dynamics, Pouder and John (1996) argue that comparative analysis between clustered and non-clustered firms during the industry life cycle reveal that firms within clusters outperform those geographically dispersed at the initial stages of development, and have a worse performance at its end. That fact suggests that the cluster life cycle is not just a local representation of the industry trajectory, but is a result from local peculiarities. The comparative analysis developed by Saxenian (1994 ) between the computer industry in Boston and Silicon Valley illustrates how different clusters belonging to the same industry are very likely to follow different trajectories (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010). Proposing a different perspective, Klepper (2001, 2007) suggests a model to demonstrate how the clusters life cycle is determined by some the industry patterns. Klepper analyzed the automobile, tire and television industries and observed that at the beginning of the industry life cycle it was not possible to observe clear geographic concentrations of firms, with most of the firms spatially dispersed. He observed that in those industries clusters started to emerge and develop according to the industry growth rates. Klepper argues that the local characteristics originating from the spacial proximity (e.g., intensive spin-off process) give the stimulus for the geographic agglomeration of the whole industry, not only for specific groups. At the time the industry growth rate reduces, the attractiveness to remain agglomerated will also decrease and the industry will become dispersed again. That model proposed by Klepper represents a Technology-Product- Industry (TIP) life cycle. The logic behind this model is on the impact that the evolution of products and innovations has on the size, number, and location of firms. Wolter (2003) criticizes the model proposed by Klepper arguing that the growth rate cannot explain the agglomeration process in all industries on equal basis. Moreover, Wolter disagrees with the determinist perspective proposed by the TIP model, once it neglects that mature industries can be reinvented by radical or incremental innovations of new products and process. Analyzing the economic performance of firms within clusters Pouder and John (1996) attribute to the existence of mental models and biased cognitive focus the characteristics responsible for shaping the movement through the clusters life cycle. Following that perspective, at initial stages the cluster dynamics creates an innovative environment that exerts positive impacts on the firms performance. However, overtime that initial condition is eroded by strong institutional pressures that create a homogeneous macroculture that acts inhibiting the innovative capacity of the firms within the cluster. As in the model presented by Klepper (2001, 2007), that trajectory proposed by Pouder and John may also be criticized by the determinism that ignores the possibility of adaptations or reconfigurations in order to avoid lock-ins and other negative effects. Considering the arguments proposed by Menzel and Fornahl (2010, p. 8) that very few clusters follow a rigid life cycle from emergence to growth and decline, it is expected that clusters evolve overtime according to the local dynamics created by economic and social interactions among firms and institutions. That dynamics may be influenced, but not strictly determined by industry patterns (Wolter, 2003). Following a generic and stylized trajectory, within successful clusters the local network formed by inter-firm connections will tend to be intensified overtime, with an increasing number of formal and informal interactions between the long-established companies and new the ones attracted to the cluster. Even though it is more conceivable to assume that the decisions adopted by firms and institutions are shaped by specific circumstances, a generic trajectory can be described following the stages illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: The cluster life cycle C:UsersLucasAppDataLocalMicrosoftWindowsTemporary Internet FilesContent.WordSem tÃÆ' ­tulo.jpg Source: Andersson et al. (2004, p. 43) Agglomeration: It is possible to observe the existence of a number of companies and other actors (e.g. banks, government agencies, universities, accountants, and lawyers offices) in a specific region working around the same or interrelated activities. Emerging cluster: Forming the embryo to the cluster some actors start to cooperation around some core activities, and start to realize the existence of common linkages. Developing cluster: The linkages are intensified by the emergence and attraction of new actors to the region, resulting in the creation of more interaction. In this context the development of inter-firm-cooperation becomes more evident through the development of joint efforts. The Mature cluster: This stage is configured by the presence of a certain critical mass of factors that consistently influence the competitive performance of the firms inside the cluster. The internal dynamics is characterized by the presence of an institutional environment, strong linkages, complementarities and the emergence of new firms through startups, joint ventures and spin-offs. Transformation: Indeed the process of continuous environmental change in markets, technologies, regulations and other process, to be successful a cluster have to innovate and adapt to these new conditions, other way stagnation and decay may affect the cluster dynamics. That process of change/adaptation may happen through the emergence of one or several interconnected clusters with focus in other activities, or by new configuration in terms of networks of firms and institutions. The presence of economic benefits for clustered firms described by authors like Schmitz and Nadvi (1999), Ketels (2004), Isbasoiu (2006) and Pitelis and Pseiridis (2006) are closely related to the stage of development that a cluster is experiencing. For example, an emerging cluster is not actually a cluster, since the small number of firms is not expected to present a high level of linkages and do not form a critical mass. Moreover, the absence of strong interdependencies such as labour mobility, spin-off, socioeconomic networks and intense exchange of good and services prevent the emergence of local capabilities. Thus, same considering that this stage constitutes the embryo that determines the future cluster orientation, at this point the firms are not expected to be strongly influenced by a complex local dynamics. Observing that fact, Menzel and Fornahl (2010) present a skeptical position regarding the effectiveness of any competitiveness policy intended to stimulate the development of clusters at initial stages (agglomeration and emerging), since the existence of horizontal and vertical links among firms concentrated in the same region constitutes a very common fact around the world. Thus, it is almost impossible to distinguish agglomerations with real potential to become a cluster from less complex structures. Consequently, emerging clusters are almost always only described ex-post. After the initial stages of the clusters life cycle it is expected the development and intensification of interdependencies between firms within cluster boundaries (Press, 2006). Indeed the development of those interdependencies, firms start to resemble more with each other, being observe the emergence of convergent designs in terms of technological models (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010), specialized labour market (Cooke et al., 2007), production systems (Pitelis, 2010) and inter-firm relationships (Blien and Maier, 2008). Moreover, developing clusters also attract a high number of start-ups that act stimulating the intensification of intra-cluster relationships. This way, that process of convergence and expansion of the number of firms within the cluster boundaries culminates in the development of self-reinforcing external economies that decrease the heterogeneity among firms at the same time that creates benefits like transactions cost economies and the privileged access to local knowle dge. As clusters reach the stage of maturity, the standards and configurations originating from past decisions become consolidate and it is observed a reduction in the growth rate of firms attracted to the cluster (Klepper, 2007). At this point the cluster trajectory may take two different directions. Keep unchanged, and suffer with a homogenization process that creates bias economic activities and therefore prevent firms to adapt to external shocks (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010). That situation traps firms in previous successful development path and lead to the geographic dispersion of the local actors and to the deterioration of the interdependencies and capabilities. The other possible trajectory is observed in clusters that reach the stage of maturity and successfully sustain the local dynamics by a continuous process of reconfiguration and adaptation to the external shocks (Wolter, 2003). 1.2 Clusters and Economic Performance The extant theory offers a wide range of explanations to justify the economic and competitive benefits experienced by firms located within clusters. Krugman (1991) stress the existence of increasing returns originating from the concentration of firms in the same area, arguing that the geographic proximity puts together the main parts related to firms activities (e.g., labours, firms, suppliers and costumers) resulting in transaction costs economies. Following other perspective, Schmitz and Nadvi (1999) argue that unintentional external economies are not sufficient to explain the competitiveness of firms located within clusters, attributing to the existence of deliberate joint actions (e.g., sharing equipments, associations, strategic alliances and producers improving components) a critical source of the competitive advantages. Pitelis and Pseiridis (2006) explain the levels of competitiveness and productivity associated with clustered firms considering the existence of specialized hu man resources, infrastructure and befits associated with unit costs economies complemented by the presence of an institutional atmosphere. Stressing a different point of view, Bahlmann and Huysman (2008) adopts the knowledge-based view of clusters to emphasize the relevance of knowledge spillovers among the firms to explain the advantages originated from the agglomeration process. Dupuy and Torre (2006) explains the existence of cluster in terms of the advantages originating from trust relationships that increase confidence and reduce risk and uncertainty about the intra-cluster operations taking place among the firms. Moreover, Zyglidopoulos et al. (2003), describe the positive effects that the reputation of a cluster may exert on the internalization process of small and micro enterprises through the alleviation of strategic constraints associated with factors like qualified work force, financing and reduction of the firms legitimation expenses. Despite that wide range of arguments, the most traditional perspective found in the cluster literature has explained the competitive advantages of clusters in terms of productivity and innovation (Pitelis, 1998; Porter, 1998), suggesting that the special characteristics originated from the economic and geographic proximity have significant impact on those two factors. Supplementary, Enright (1998) considers that the characteristics present inside the clusters local environment result in pressures, incentives and capabilities that increase the firms competitiveness comparatively to dispersed competitors, explaining the clustering process in terms of geographically restricted characteristics. Moreover, Solvell et al. (2003) suggests that the competitive advantages emerging from regional clusters may be classified as static and dynamics. According to this perspective, while the agglomeration process triggered and sustained intensively or exclusively by factors like natural resources, low cost labors and government subsidies offers a vulnerable (easy to be copied, substituted or simple eroded by environmental changes) competitive position, clusters based on dynamics characteristics like multi-sectorial externalities, advantages of scale and scope and specific knowledge spillovers are more dynamics and competitive. Extending the arguments presented by Solvell and his colleagues, Andersson et al. (2004) considers that the sustainability of static and dynamic competitive advantages is not strictly determined, arguing that static factors are the main responsible for the emergence of clusters, while the dynamics factors are only developed along the different stages of the cluste r life cycle. Complementing the understanding about the influence of the cluster dynamics on the firms economic performance some authors like Porter (2001); Garnsey and Heffernan (2007); Karlsson (2008) and Mason (2008) describe the existence of a self-reinforcing process originating from the agglomeration externalities that contribute to create a regional virtuous-circle of increasing productivity, competitiveness and value creation. Following that argument, the economic and geographic proximity will stimulate firms to innovate more indeed benefits originating from local capabilities, which will stimulate even more the agglomeration process through the intensification of inter-firm relationships and the attraction of other firms from outside the cluster, which in turn will strength the local capabilities (Blandy, 2003, p. 101). Thus, the dynamics of clusters is expected to be self-reinforced by agglomeration benefits with significant influence on the firms performance. Putting together the arguments associated with the economic impacts experienced by clustered firms indeed the existence of local factors, it is possible to identify and describe the following positive location-specific externalities: Cost savings indeed the geographic proximity with specialized suppliers, labours and distributors; Knowledge-spillovers (intentional and unintentional), since firms inside clusters can benefit from the knowledge dissemination process that may take place especially through inter-firm cooperation, specific linkages and labour mobility; Deliberate joint actions facilitated by the engagement in alliances and partnerships to achieve strategic objectives; Trust relationships, that through the geographic and economic proximity minimize the uncertainty associated with commercial operations, resulting in transactions costs economies; Pressures for higher performance, stimulated by the proximity with competitors; Specific Infrastructure and public goods that are oriented to attend the cluster demands, like roads, ports, laboratories and telecommunication networks; Complementarities, associated with firms in different activities but sharing common factors like raw material, clients and technologies that may enhance the cluster efficiency as whole. Discussing the role of regional clusters in shaping competitive patterns, Tallman et al. (2004) proposes a distinction between the types of competitive advantages emerging from clustered firms: based on traded interdependencies and based on untraded interdependencies. The concept of traded interdependencies is related to the existence of inter-firm transactions inside the cluster, and is observed in formal exchange operations that may take place in form of alliances, commercial operations and acquisitions. On the other hand, untraded interdependencies are related to less tangible effects, and are based on shared knowledge for which no market mechanism exists; with no formal exchange of value for value (Tallman et al. 2004, p. 261). To illustrate the mechanisms by which the untraded interdependencies take place, it is possible to mention unintentional external economies associated with tacit knowledge shared through mechanisms like labor mobility. Those different types of interdependencies, especially untraded, present at the cluster level, represent a source of competitive advantage that is likely to be causal ambiguous (for firms inside and outside the cluster) and high complex in terms of their origins, what consequently constitutes attributes difficult to be replicated by competitors. However, the presence of untraded effects, especially unintentional knowledge spillovers, is viewed Enright (1998) as a constraining factor for firms within clusters, since the establishment of an efficient information flow may limit the firms capacity to obtain monopoly profits from the development of innovations. Complementing the negative effects originating from the clusters dynamics, some authors also describe agglomeration diseconomies that have a negative impact firms located within clusters. For example, congestion effects (Arthur, 1990), institutional sclerosis (Pouder and John, 1996; Pitelis, 2010), rigidities associated with labour mobility and natural resources (Krugman, 1989) and pollution (Fan and Scott, 2003). This way, the dynamics and performance of a cluster is determined by the interplay between positive and negative externalities observed during the different stages of development that a cluster is expected to pass overtime (Wolter, 2003) Limitations in the Cluster Theory Notwithstanding the advances in the cluster theory some questions still remain insufficiently explored. One of the main limitations observed in the current state of the cluster literature is the lack of comparative perspectives to explain the advantages and disadvantages of clusters relatively to other alternative models of organization of economic activities. In his very novel approach, Pitelis (2010) suggests that any perspective trying to explain clusters in terms of absolute advantages is at the very best incomplete. In this context, Pitelis proposes the comparison of clusters vis-ÃÆ'  -vis to markets and hierarchies in order to understand the reasons and conditions that lead firms to engage in intra-clusters relationships, market operations (outside the cluster) or integrate within the firms hierarchy. In fact it is not necessary a great effort to conclude that most of the cluster theory has been developed following a mono-institutional approach (e.g. Porter, 1990, 1998; Saxe nian, 1994; Rosenfeld, 1998; Swann and Sennett, 1998; Schmitz and Nadvi, 1999), while some few exceptions concentrated on transactions costs (e.g. Fujita and Thisse, 1996; Iammarino and McCann, 2006; Takeda et al., 2008) and knowledge creation efficiency (e.g. Hendry et al., 2000; Tracey and Clark, 2003; Reinau, 2007; Kongmanila and Takahashi, 2009) have been drawn on a comparative approaches between clusters and open-market operations. Assuming the arguments proposed by many scholars that clusters are engines of innovation (Davis, 2006, p. 32), the lack of comparative perspectives do not answer the question why clusters are more efficient than markets or the hierarchy to improve the firms innovative capacity (Pitelis, 2010). Thus, despite the wide number of ramifications observed in the cluster theory such as innovative efficiency, productivity, social capital and social interactions, its explicative power remains almost always restricted